I know what the advantages of a larger sensor are. I used to use a Hasselblad (which I still have) and a 6x9 medium format system and sometimes larger formats - as well as a 35mm Nikon SLR system. I believe in using the most suitable tool you have for the job.

The usual intro of "i know what I am talking about because I used X, owned Y and have been ding it for Z years..."

I currently also use a full frame DSLR (D800E) and a smaller camera - which usually gets more use because it is more convenient and has all IQ I need for what I'm doing much of the time. I tend to use the D800E where once I would have used medium format and the smaller camera where I would have used 35mm - (and even for a some things I would have used medium format film).

More intro....

In the late 1970's and early 80's there were a bunch of smaller medium format "645" cameras with SLR like features launched (Mamiya 645, Bronica 645, Pentax 645, Contax 645) - hardly bigger and or more expensive (at least for the bodies) than some top end "pro" 35mm SLRs. They had great reviews in all the photo magazines at the time, and people were predicting they would replace serious 35mm DLRs. Of course they had certain advantages particualrly in terms of IQ and ability to make larger prints etc. For a while many people bought these cameras instead of a 35mm SLR, but after a year or two many moved back because they found the 35mm systems to be much more convenient, somewhat less expensive, and decided that the 35mm IQ was sufficient for their needs.

More history class that no one asked for.

Dont you get it? none of this stuf matters .what matters in the context of this discussion is that you are spreading FALSE INFORMATION. lets not get carried away with spin, please.

CFynn : the overall system will still be much smaller than any full frame system.

IT IS WRONG. For the same IQ, M43 system are larger.

CFynn : Some people also want more reach or more depth of field - not less.

IT IS WRONG. Because every current lens we know is capable of stopping down to give infinite, or very near infinite DOF. m43 has no DOF advantage whatsoever.

CFynn: But the so far announced full frame E mount lenses are not particularly fast - so you loose much of that advantage. Fast full frame E mount lenses will be quite big too.

CFynn : Body price is only a small part of the equation. Sony charge relatively high prices for lenses and other things - that soon mounts up if you want to build a whole system.

IT IS WRONG TO ASSERT SONY COST MORE BECAUSE IT IS FF. . As expensive as Sony's FE lenses, to replicate their performance you have to spend a whole lot more with 43/m43 lenses.

I see a similar thing happening today with the excitement for "full frame" digital - with more affordable full frame cameras quite a lot of people are buying much more camera than they need.

Only now M4/3 or APS is like the 35mm cameras of the past and full frame digital is like the 645 medium format film cameras back then.

I expect a lot of people buying full frame digital today may decide after a year or two to go back to a smaller system - or at that they want to supplement that full frame system with a smaller one like m4/3 which is easier to carry around.

So you cannot stand the idea that people should spend their money as they see fit, therefore you spread FALSE INFORMATION to deter them from buying something? That is, in essence, what you are doing.

Actually, it's you who's missing the point. I would bet that Cfynn and others are not attempting to claim equivalent image quality. I haven't followed the whole thread yet, but I would suspect they're talking about a standard M4/3s kit, with f2.8 lenses, or thereabouts.